Single-shot spinal block for labour analgesia in multiparous parturients*

Safety and Efficiency of Low-Dose Spinal Analgesia Compared to Epidural Analgesia in Treatment of Pain during Labour: A Case Control Study

BACKGROUND

The epidural catheter for analgesia has been used for decades and has become the gold standard in pain therapy for pregnant women in labour. However, procedural parameters such as time to pain relief and duration to implementation pose hurdles for patients shortly before delivery. Low-dose spinal analgesia (LDSA) is an alternative procedure that was investigated in the study with regard to patient satisfaction and complication rates compared to epidural catheter.

METHODS

In a retrospective monocentric study, a total of 242 patients receiving low-dose spinal analgesia or epidural catheters were evaluated using propensity score matching. Subjective patient satisfaction as well as complication rates were primarily analysed. We hypothesise that LDSA is a safe procedure and provides a similar level of satisfaction compared with the epidural catheter. For this purpose, both procedures were performed according to in-house standards and the patients were interviewed afterwards. Patients who required surgical delivery were excluded to prevent bias.

RESULTS

The LDSA was rated on average as very good [1.09 ± 0.311 vs. 1.07 ± 0.431] in terms of satisfaction by the patients compared to the epidural catheter without showing a significant difference (p = 0.653). Complications were in the low single-digit non-significant range for both procedures [6 (5%) vs. 7 (6%); p = 0.776]. The evaluation showed more perineal tears I° and II° in the low-dose spinal analgesia group [I°: 28 (23%) vs. 3 (2%); p < 0.001-II°: 30 (25%) vs. 2 (2%); p < 0.001]. Neonatal parameters differed significantly only in umbilical cord base excess and umbilical cord venous pH [-5.40 vs. -6.40; p = 0.005].

CONCLUSIONS

LDSA represents a low complication procedure for patients at the end of labour with a high satisfaction level. With the LDSA in the repertoire of pain relief during childbirth, it is possible to also achieve pain reduction for women with deliveries of high velocity without compromising patient satisfaction or perinatal morbidity.

Labour analgesia by single shot spinal for any parturient?-A retrospective one-year single centre audit

BACKGROUND

Single shot spinal (SSS) provides effective analgesia for multiparous parturients during advanced labour. Its utility in early labour or primiparous parturients may be limited by the insufficient duration of action. Regardless, SSS may offer a reasonable labour analgesia option in certain clinical scenarios. In this retrospective study, we analyse the failure rate of SSS analgesia by assessing pain after the SSS and by determining the need for additional analgesic interventions in primiparous or early-stage multiparous parturients compared to multiparous parturients in advanced labour (cervix ≥6 cm).

METHODS

Following institutional ethical board approval, the patient files of all parturients receiving SSS analgesia during a 12-month period in a single centre were analysed for any recorded notes regarding recurrent pain or subsequent analgesia interventions (a new SSS, epidural, pudendal or paracervical bloc) as a marker for insufficient analgesia.

RESULTS

A total of 88 primiparous and 447 multiparous parturients (cervix <6 cm: N = 131; cervix ≥6 cm: N = 316) received SSS analgesia. The odds ratio for the insufficient duration of analgesia was 1.94 (1.08-3.48) in primiparous and 2.08 (1.25-3.46) in early-stage multiparous parturients compared to advanced multiparous labour (p < .01). Primiparous and early-stage multiparous parturients were also 2.20 (1.15-4.20) and 2.61 (1.50-4.55) times more likely, respectively, to receive new peripheral and/or neuraxial analgesic interventions during delivery (p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

SSS appears to provide adequate labour analgesia for the majority of parturients in whom it is used, including nulliparous and early-stage multiparous parturients. It remains a reasonable option in certain clinical scenarios, including resource-limited settings where epidural analgesia is unavailable.

Addition of Fentanyl or High-Dose Morphine to Bupivacaine Is Superior to Bupivacaine Alone during Single-Shot Spinal Anesthesia

BACKGROUND

Single-shot spinal anesthesia (SSSA) with bupivacaine is a useful technique for pain control during the active phase of labor due to its simplicity and rapid onset. In this study, we evaluated the efficacy of the addition of fentanyl or high-dose morphine to bupivacaine during SSSA.

METHODS

Ninety healthy consecutive multiparous parturients in the active phase of progressing labor (cervical dilatation ≥7 cm; pain score >4) requesting analgesia were included in this study. The patients were randomly allocated into 3 SSSA groups as follows: group 1 (n = 30) receiving 2.5-mg hypobaric bupivacaine alone, group 2 (n = 30) receiving a combination of 2.5-mg hypobaric bupivacaine and 10-μg fentanyl, and group 3 (n = 30) receiving a combination of 2.5-mg hypobaric bupivacaine and 0.5-mg morphine. The duration of analgesia, VAS scores, side effects, and obstetric and neonatal outcomes were compared.

RESULTS

The main gestational age and cervical dilatation of the patients were 38.7 ± 1.5 months and 7.2 ± 2.2 cm (p = 0.14 and p = 0.65), respectively. The main VAS score significantly decreased in all groups at 3 h from baseline: from 8.25 to 1.75 in group 1, from 7.61 to 1.28 in group 2, and from 8.12 to 1.26 in group 3 (p < 0.001). The duration of the second phase of delivery was similar in all groups (45.5, 44, and 38 min, respectively; p = 0.67). The total analgesia duration was significantly higher in group 3 (172, 180, and 190 min for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively; p = 0.01). The Apgar scores and fetal heart rates were similar in all groups (p = 0.95). Side effects were similar, except for pruritus in group 3 (p = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

The addition of fentanyl or high-dose morphine to bupivacaine increases the efficacy and duration of SSSA in the active phase of progressing labor without increasing side effects.

Need for additional anesthesia after single injection spinal analgesia for labor: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

There is little information about the use and efficacy of single injection spinal blocks for labor analgesia; specifically, how frequently subsequent analgesia or anesthesia is needed. This study determined how frequently an additional anesthetic intervention was needed in women who received single injection spinal analgesia.

METHODS

This retrospective study examined electronic medical records to find all single injection spinal analgesic blocks for labor analgesia over a 14-year (2003-2016) period. Patient and block characteristics and patient outcomes were recorded. The primary outcome was need for an additional anesthetic intervention following single injection spinal for labor analgesia.

RESULTS

Four-hundred-and-twenty-eight patients received single injection spinal blocks for labor and 60 (14.0%) needed an additional anesthetic either for labor analgesia (n=49) or an unexpected procedure (n=11). Two of these (0.5%) required general anesthesia. Parity of zero (nulliparous), a low cervical dilation at the time of the spinal injection, and induction of labor status, were associated with an increased risk of needing an additional anesthetic intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective review provides evidence that single injection spinal anesthesia may be used for multiparous women with spontaneous labor and more advanced cervical dilation.

Update on best available options in obstetrics anaesthesia: perinatal outcomes, side effects and maternal satisfaction. Fifteen years systematic literature review

PURPOSE

In modern obstetrics, different pharmacological and non-pharmacological options allow to obtain pain relief during labour, one of the most important goals in women satisfaction about medical care. The aim of this review is to compare all the analgesia administration schemes in terms of effectiveness in pain relief, length of labour, mode of delivery, side effects and neonatal outcomes.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in electronic databases in the interval time between January 1999 and March 2013. Key search terms included: “labour analgesia”, “epidural anaesthesia during labour” (excluding anaesthesia for Caesarean section), “epidural analgesia and labour outcome” and “intra-thecal analgesia”.

RESULTS

10,331 patients were analysed: 5,578 patients underwent Epidural-Analgesia, 259 patients spinal analgesia, 2,724 combined spinal epidural analgesia, 322 continuous epidural infusion (CEI), 168 intermittent epidural bolus, 684 patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia and 152 intra-venous patient-controlled epidural analgesia. We also considered 341 women who underwent patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia in association with CEI and 103 patients who underwent patient-controlled infusion epidural analgesia in association with automatic mandatory bolus.

CONCLUSION

No significant differences occurred among all the available administration schemes of neuraxial analgesia. In absence of obstetrical contraindication, neuraxial analgesia has to be considered as the gold standard in obtaining maternal pain relief during labour. The options available in the administration of analgesia should be known and evaluated together by both gynaecologists and anaesthesiologists to choose the best personalized scheme and obtain the best women satisfaction. Since it is difficult to identify comparable circumstances during labour, it is complicate to standardize drugs schemes and their combinations.

Maternal satisfaction with single-dose spinal analgesia for labor pain in Indonesia: a landmark study

The purpose of this study was to assess maternal satisfaction with single-dose spinal analgesia for the management of obstetric pain in Indonesian women. The investigation included 62 laboring women with single pregnancy at term, with 45 primigravidas and 17 multigravidas. The participants' ages ranged from 15 to 29 years. All participants were screened for physical health and were classified as healthy according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification system. All 62 parturients received single-dose spinal anesthesia with a 27-gauge pencil-point needle at either the L3-4 or L4-5 intervertebral interspace, with a combination of bupivacaine, 2.5 mg; morphine, 0.25 mg; and clonidine, 45 microg. Maternal satisfaction, duration of pain relief, and side effects were studied. The overall maternal satisfaction with the single-dose spinal technique for labor analgesia in our study group was high, with 50 patients (81%) being very satisfied, and 7 patients (11%) being satisfied with the quality of labor analgesia. Forty-nine patients (79%) stated that they would select single-dose spinal analgesia for pain control in labor in the future. Our study was the first one in Indonesia to assess maternal satisfaction with single-dose spinal analgesia for labor pain. We concluded that single-dose spinal analgesia with a combination of bupivacaine, morphine, and clonidine provided effective labor pain control for Indonesian women, and maternal satisfaction with this technique was very high. This technique is very cost-effective and should be recommended for routine obstetric pain control in Indonesia and other developing countries.